
38:51
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

40:07
https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit#heading=h.xufozeaoexkx

40:07
please post the URL to the wiki of the meeting to chat

40:20
https://community.icann.org/x/xgGNC

41:15
thanks

42:08
Thanks Zak

44:16
That wording tweak seems to make sense

44:43
nothing to add

49:27
Are "mechanisms" the same thing a "contractual provisions"? I don't think it is.

49:42
new

50:09
Agree that this is about provider accountability not CPs accountability

50:32
What are the mechanisms? I think Maxim may be conflating contractual provisions with mechanisms.

50:34
or procedures

50:42
better than policies

51:11
mechanism - compliant sent to icann complaint

51:45
everything else is in RA, RAA, URS documents (3 items)

52:03
I mean to ICANN Compliance dept

52:42
we might need some text describing this

53:49
feelings are not facts

53:57
so we can not follow it

54:25
@Phil - I believe so

54:47
Otherwise, the recommendation would be a nullity.

55:02
maybe it has to

01:00:31
I understand Maxim's position, but I don't think a single WG member should have a veto over.

01:00:46
the work of the WG and the public comment

01:01:16
we do not see facts of what feelings are based on

01:01:29
+1 Zak

01:01:55
text clearly saying that the mechanism required for CPH

01:02:49
Agree Paul

01:03:06
Apologies for joining late, had a prior call run 30 minutes over time

01:03:32
agree Paul, this recommendation has been well supported throughout process

01:03:46
subgroup is not the whole WG

01:04:14
@Maxim, whole WG agreed the proosed recommendation that went out to public comment

01:05:19
I think Phil's idea about IRT text is a good one, not in the rec but in the explanation to caution about creating a new mechanism whare one already exists

01:05:33
+1 David

01:06:03
please add minority opinion

01:06:44
please set it as an action item for me

01:07:44
Noted Maxim

01:09:17
Noting that while the recommendation may seem elementary, it responded to a real problem that the WG uncovered

01:11:29
Nothing to add

01:12:04
highlighted on screen

01:12:19
PCRT Row #25: It would be ideal for ICANN to maintain a single source of accurate and up-to-date contact information that registries, registrars and URS providers can check against.

01:13:05
speaking about #4 , it was not only my opinion, public comment of RySG did not support it, so it is Registries, not just a member of RPM WG

01:13:08
INTA’s proposed rewording: “The Working Group recommends that the ICANN org, Registries, Registrars, and URS Providers take appropriate steps to ensure that each other’s contact details are up to date in order to effectively fulfill the notice requirements set forth in the URS Procedure para 4.”

01:14:54
David hand’s up

01:15:01
hand up

01:16:32
INTA typically makes proposals based on experience.

01:16:33
agree with David that the INTA tweak seems beneficial

01:16:34
David +1

01:18:42
I did reach out, thanks Zak

01:18:50
got no responses

01:18:56
certificate of a recognized Certificate Authority does not cost that much

01:21:12
don't care does not mean it is not a problem

01:23:49
+1 Zak

01:23:52
@Zak -- thank you.

01:23:59
INTA supports as well.

01:24:55
I support the INTA comment or as implementation guidance as Mary notes

01:25:54
Some implementation notes may also be in the form of clarifying text in the contextual section (as Phil is saying, I believe).

01:26:10
You are very welcome.

01:32:05
And of course you will be able to review the final text of any additional language or implementation guidance that this table is converted into for the Final Report. Thank you Phil and all!

01:32:39
That’s correct

01:32:55
Yay!!

01:33:17
Thanks Phil, staff, and all

01:33:23
Thanks Phil, bye all

01:33:27
Next ones: URS Rec #6 & Q#4, Rec #7, Rec #8 & Q#5

01:33:37
Thanks, Phil

01:33:42
@Staff - have we set times up yet for the small groups?

01:33:52
I don't recall seeing invites or emails.

01:34:13
@Paul, we had suggested the groups start with the Google Docs that were created and discuss via email.

01:34:27
We can certainly arrange a call if you think it’s needed, of course.

01:34:37
@Mary - I think that would make sense.

01:34:45
Sorry, I might have missed this, but there's also the final GIs wording

01:34:53
We will recirculate the Google Doc links to the small group.

01:35:17
Thanks Mary. Can you do a Doodle as well for a call mid next week?

01:35:21
@Rebecca - yes staff will circulate the final proposed text for discussion via the list.

01:36:06
thanks mary

01:36:07
bye all

01:36:10
Thanks